M/S. Eminent Textile Mills Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Held

The Court held that the delay in filing the return was marginal and therefore inclined to quash the impugned order. The Court decided to remit the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments. The impugned order, which was quashed, was to be treated as a Show Cause Notice under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice along with supporting documents within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. The respondent was directed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months of receiving the petitioner's reply. The limitation period for passing the order was to be excluded during the period between the date of the impugned order and the receipt of a copy of the High Court's order. The respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Eminent Textile Mills Pvt Ltd., filed a Writ Petition challenging an order in Form GST ASMT-13 dated July 19, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Rajapalayam II Assessment Circle. This order was passed due to the belated filing of the Monthly Return in Form GSTR-3B for May 2024. The impugned order was preceded by a notice under Section 46 of the GST enactments dated June 25, 2024. The petitioner subsequently filed the return on October 27, 2024, which was slightly beyond the period prescribed under Section 62 of the GST enactments. The petitioner contended that the order was without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated July 19, 2024, issued by the respondent under the GST enactments, is liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, considering the belated filing of the GSTR-3B return for May 2024? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, emphasizing that the delay in filing the return was marginal. The petitioner sought to quash the order. The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, took notice of the writ petition. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent in the judgment.